justanotherwargamer1

I won't be droning on and on, and I am not going to say mean things either. But this is just SC2 in the Pacific, and no, I am not expecting to want this. The visual aspect just doesn't do it for me. But I won't refuse to try the demo. I assume there is a demo planned. I just can't get Ireland out of my head, and somehow this looks like an incredibly large dose of Irelands. I'll need a GREAT deal of people explaining how the game has evolved enough to allow for island hoping. And one tile islands don't look very encouraging. This is where you explain how you will defend an island that historically was all about the airfield, but in the game you can't place both a land unit to hold it, and an air unit to make it something worth holding. I don't even want to think about the naval game just now. That's going to be one massive dose of engine evolution. As we speak, I don't own a Pacific grand strategy title I really feel "excited" about. I think I was nuts buying War in the Pacific (to be honest, it's not about the game's accuracy, I think I'd rather just put in a 12 hour day as an accountant, likely more relaxing).

If anyone needs em, I have a thing for storing stuff I likely have all the SC mods anyone ever gave a darn for. Granted, it is 90 megs of files in my stash we are talking about here Might be some duplication. But getting them from me would be simple enough if anyone was interested enough.

Advanced Tactics is the creation of Victor Reijkersz. It grew out of his one man creation called People's Tactics. Just how many people Vic had available for the modified game is uncertain. He likely had someone available to produce the manual. Marc usually does them at Matrix Games. It's interesting you can say "I do not like ANY games from Matrix" considering they probably market 60% of the easily found computer wargames on the market. And if not for HPS, likely would be responsible for closer to 80% So what you are saying, is you hardly like any wargame on the market. My question, is have you played any of them, or is this just your way of saying I hate Matrix Games simply because I like some of their games? I likely have no interest in half of the Matrix Games catalogue. But that's just field of interest. I'm not big on Civil War or Nappy games. I don't think everything they do is golden though. I don't like Panzer Command at all. I also have been around long enough to remember their flubs like Firefight and Eric Young Squad Assault. And it's not like a game magically succeeds just because it's there. They simply couldn't get Combat Leader to work redardless of how much effort they threw at it. I'm not "bashing" Hubert's game, I'm stating, it wouldn't survive a fair fight against more than a few designs. I think if they ever actually get Computer World in Flames out the door (seeing is believing), it might well raise the bar so bloody high that trying to market WW2 grand strategy will become nearly impossible. Just an opinion of someone that has played nearly every wargame which I talk about.

Fortunately I don't need to rely on memory to know that 100% of the people playing SC1 and SC2 don't have the game to which I think we would all prefer to have. It doesn't yet exist. And we are still waiting. Now I should mention, that over at Matrix Games, they have a design called Advanced Tactics which likely has done a better job at being both a WW2 design as well as a Red vs Blue type design. The game can make random maps all by itself if asked to as well, no need for the player to do it at all. It can emulate other games such as the classic board game Axis and Allies just as readily as famous theaters of war such as North Afrika. In some ways, Advanced Tactiucs may well be the grand strategy equal of Steel Panthers which can emulate any form of squad level tactical combat from any portion of WW2. If Advanced Tactics was a WEGO design, I dare say it would likely own the entire market for grand strategy, and Hubert wouldn't be able to give SC2 away for free. Sorry Hubert, you can't always get showered with praise eh. As it goes, Advanced Tactics is likely the most under rated game on the market.

I dunno, I went through airport security once with nothing better than a photo ID to a local video rental (my sister wanted to kill me for that though). But I was wearing my old Canadian army jacket at the time too. I must have scared them. "Let him pass, everyone knows Canadians actively go around seeking to join other people's wars, he's probably bored and looking for a fight".

I think the US could hold out for longer than 1 turn. The Canadians would be burdened with needing to bring along proper beer, and the further into the US they penetrated the more shocking the beer conditions would get. The last straw would be the lack of poutine, lousy coffee and no Timbits. The end would likely come in Florida when too many of the troops would forget they weren't on vacation.

Myself, I have SC1, it's "ok" it will likely always have those elements that "need some work". I don't expect Hubert to re open the game and do more work on it really I don't. It's ok to admit that the day is gone. I also don't expect to get anything done to give Squad Leader any tweaks. I expect to be told to just get ASL Come to think of it, I'm still sad they weren't able to get Combat Leader off the ground. I'm not a fan of SC2, and I am expecting anything built on it and looking like it likely will not grab me. Whether it be Pacific theatre or even external to WW2 entirely. Civil War with the tiles would be a massive pile of dung. Arab Israelis conflict in tiles would be a crock too. Sometimes perfume on a pig is just perfume on a pig eh. I'm not waiting on SC3 to be a magical solution fixed reborn SC1. Nice dream I guess, but I'd rather Hubert just take the learning from SC1 and SC2 and give me the right game. Maybe 3rd times the charm. As has already been mentioned by me, I require a simple easy to run game of WW2 grand strategy. One actually using WEGO. It's not just a concept with me, I'm saying it's a requirement. Layer an AI if you adamantly insist, just so long as it can be ignored by me. And I want those damn hexes. Draw pretty graphics if you think that's the only way to attract the shallow, it's not important to me, and I will be among those likely waiting for a Nato counter set to replace them. I think Hubert has the needed talent to make my "great wargame" I think we just need to convince him to make it. SC1 got the bases loaded. SC2 though was not the homerun expected. I haven't been focusing on the nuances of the two games, because to me it would have been a wasted effort. I want SC1 to enjoy it's glory, but it's in the past. And I don't want an enhanced or altered or modified SC2. I want it replaced with the WEGO concept entirely. I'm already thinking an entirely new piece of programming. There comes a time when you have to let something go I guess. I can let SC1 go, I'd like to see people let SC2 go. Stop with the beat it to death expansions. Clean up the tools. Get a fresh slate, and get working on the new design.

No sweat John, had a momentary twinge, then had a reality check and realize you is cool The thing with games, is we can't play games we are not given. So if all we are given is games with shoddy AIs for opponents, because the scene isn't possible, or realistic against humans, then it's understandable people will demand AIs thinking they need AIs when in truth what they need, and likely don't realize, is a good well made game that would consider an AI opponent a bad second place. In the future I'd like to hear wargamers laughing at the suggestion a person settle for playing the AI "you're actually serious? you want me to play a predictable, unchallenging opponent that couldn't possibly win against even a bland player? Do I look that seriously bored to you?." I live my life mainly in science. The day we have an AI that is actually a capable adversary we better have ditched all knowledge of nuclear weapons. That's one particular popular scifi scenario I have no interest in. It's not an idea solution, but if a wargamer is truly destitute for opponents, they can always have a family and raise them Youth clubs, seniors clubs hell there's all sorts of venues for finding opponents. I've always been of the opinion if a wargamer can't think of a way to get someone on the other side of the table I don't wish to play them. They'd simply not be smart enough for my needs But wargame makers need to do there part in designing wargames MEANT to be played online against people. I can do many things, alas software design isn't one of them. I've a better chance of designing real world military ordnance.

John you just argued for WEGO and just aren't aware of it. WEGO = good luck cheating. Sure go ahead and save your turn, but the fact is the turn doesn't resolve till both players say so, and then all you can do is watch and hope the "plan" worked. It's not like you can reload it. Superior WEGO leads to superior play. Again you just argued for it, you just don't seem to realize it. If you didn't have bad experiences of non WEGO, you'd not be overly concerned about online play, and rapidly, playing the AI, would end up always second best for your pleasure. In referencing "sales" the truth is sales suck with the AIs. They suck without the AIs. Trouble is, most wargames suck for sales. Our biggest hits of the past, major successes like Squad Leader, heck if we offered the numbers up to a common console game title, we'd get laughed at. That's just how our demographic is. Until we make the games engaging, reliable, approachable, and versus people, they'll always be the hopeless demographic they are unfortunately. It's not like the non wargamers have it better, they just prefer to play people. I've played games against the "bots" the non player adversaries in things like shooters. They're none too bright either. Playing a run through in a game like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Medal of Honour and playing offline against the bots sucks basically as well. But people don't buy those games to play the bots. Why is it a wargamer is content to play an AI? It's a wargamer that wants the greatest deal of accuracy frrom the game, thus burdening an AI like no other gamer, and yet still expecting the over burdened AI to excel. I challenge the myth that a wargame can't succeed in the absence of an AI. I'm perfectly happy to say we've blindly walked into this myth of our creation. I think if SC1 had been designed as a great WEGO based game, and had a great online interactive option at it's disposal, and no AI option, it would have still been a great game. I don't recall any of the buzz from SC1's heyday being from guys yammering about how they pounded the AI yet again. They were playing people. Now imagine if SC1 had never had to go through those hellish days when the cheat scandals all but ripped the heart out of the game. The big names likely wouldn't have walked out. We rarely see a lot of the old names. They might be around somewhere. But they don't seem to have remained. I can play the AI and not be totally unable to be amused. But I can also know, in advance, that the win is likely going to amount to nothing. Or I can just do what I have done for decades. Play both sides. Take my best shot as the Germans. Play as good as I can think. Then play the Allies, and give the Germans a stunning reply. Rinse repeat. Blows me away that people just can't do that. Doesn't require a split personality, just a very unbiased analytical mind. But it's also lonely. Playing solo sucks. I'm a human being, were inescapably social creatures. I want to be with people.

Realities. AI's are worthless Opponents needing worthless AIs are dreadful wargamers Companies are in it for money. God just once I would love to hear how a game maker made a typical bland AI and when people said it was bland the designer responded with "You insisted it had to have an AI, you already knew there was no such thing as an actual Artificial Intelligence, so I gave you what you demanded because in the end, you insisted I sell it to you". But the AI issue is just a piece of the big picture. I love my hexes, but I'd love even more playing an opponent online. And in the absence of wego there is less reason to wait for an honest game, than there is a capable AI. Humans are humans every bit as much as AIs are just what they are. AI's cheat because it's a designed in feature, and humans cheat because they are weak. You say "oh surely not everyone cheats". Truth is I have fudged rolls of the dice in my day, and I have seen scores and scores of normally decent people cheat in games. It's as I said, "human". So while some of us are lamenting how SC1 didn't evolve into the SC2 we would have liked. And some of us are hoping we can coerce Hubbert into making an SC3 which might never turn up. Myself, I'd like to see the ultimate WEGO grand strategy title played primarily online. Because if I'm going to grind some schmuck into the dirt under the heel of my boot. 1. He's going to be a registered player with a rep for quitting if he always finds an excuse for not finishing a game. 2. He's going to be playing WEGO and will have no gimmicky moves he can blame the game for when he loses. 3. And the word cheat won't be an option. Even if I can't play it on hexes, or with unit stacking like I prefer. And I sure ain't going to allow the asumption that "I" was cheating to be made.

SeaMonkey supported some of my comments (not 100% but that would be creepy). So I will reinforce some of his. Maybe not with the same emphasis but I'm not in his head either. "Remember SC1 AI left much to be desired" The SC AI was basically a retard, if you win against it keep the cheering down, no one that plays real wargames cares. The trouble is, too many wargamers would rather play their masturbatory style of wargaming, just them and the computer. Frankly I have seen all the wargames on the market worth the term wargame, and the AI in ALL of them suck the second you compare them with a real brain. Ever old mega classics like Steel Panthers has an easily demonstrable total lack of brains in some aspects of the design. Steel Panthers in Battle mode is totally worthless against the AI. So lets stop comparing various forms of retard, and just get over it, if you play the AI you like playing retards. Deal with it or deal with getting off your butt and playing a human. And no, I don't want to hear your whiny reasons like real life limitations or location based problems. YOU are not a good basis for designing a game's pointless AI. I don't care how many of you fools with money to burn claim to be the decisive numbers in making the choice, the truth is your AI dependency is a waste of cash. I would rather wargame designers gave us one of two choices, play both sides ourselves, or play a human. The day they stop making worthless AIs the sooner we can stop debating the magnitude of retard in each game. They defined the French well in A3R. Use were assumed to be the USA player, as the French in a routine game weren't expected to be there in 42. Sorry to sound like a slag on the French but in WW2 your larger military was chewed up and spit out. Your victory is based on whether the real leaders of the time sucked more than you did. If the Germans can blitz France in 40 for love of money, the design is off somewhere. It's a WW2 wargame, not Red vs Blue. Deal with the sides being unbalanced. In WW2 it was just that way. "I'm sorry, I'm not buying into this nostalgia of SC1 being better" I am not myself worshiping SC1. I am just saying given a choice of it solo, or SC2 solo, I'd rather not have to look at SC2 at all. Some of SC1's warts were fairly ugly. No nostalgia here (in my case at least). But a lot of the warts were also directly the fault of the AI (which never should have existed). I seriously wanted a game that improved on SC1 directly. I didn't want it replaced, I wanted the few things wrong with it fixed. Now I can't sit here and know ALL of the code that made SC1 the game it was though, so no point being totally inflexible. But SC2 was not what I was waiting for. Which largely explains why I'm not satisfied playing it. While SC2 was busy failing me, I discovered Commander Europe at War. For whatever faults CEAW might have, it was better than SC2 (for me at least). But I don't want to do the dog chasing tail effectively. So I will try to eliminate covering old ground twice. Wargame designers are not thinking outside of the box much, aren't using KNOWN ideas that work much, and are pandering to requirements that will never succeed most notably lousy AI concepts. Here's today's thought. A wargame with an easy as sin interface for going online, and playing the wargame live online in wego mode with an ability to save at the conclusion of any full turn sequence. A gamer's lobby where gamers can meet to play their games live against real opponents. Doesn't matter WHAT type of game. I'd pay to play if the service was a monthly charge for ANY of the company's games. And if that is NOT enough for the business to afford the service, then frankly it's time to get OUT of the business. I'd require that all members were thus registered users. I don't have time for anyone else. And you can sure bet you can shove that Battlefront elicense too I don't mind adding. I don't have trouble with Matrix Games and Digital River at all. I prefer the file to be mine to do as I wish.

The problem with the idea otto is the further you expand the map, the further you get from the whole concept of strategic. Eventually you get to a point where one man is standing on piece of ground and of course two people can't occupy the same location. An army can occupy a city, clearly a naval force isn't actually IN the city, but they ARE in the port. And why can't an airforce unit not occupy an airport in the same city? I have much more trouble with the above than being denied the ability to deploy 2 ground units in the same location.

I see "container" and it seems like we are both referring to "interface". And in the end, it ends up with multiple units in a single hex. Which is what I want. You'd be mistaken if you thought I thought having to click numerous times to cycle through the stack was more desirable than employing an interface that displayed whatever was present in an interface option that showed the entire hex's contents in a single click. I've always been of the opinion not one wargame had an AI worth caring about. I've always been of the opinion great games have great interfaces, and lousy games had lousy interfaces. The level of accuracy won't save a game that's simply no fun to play.

"Stacking is boardgame, not computer game." I assume there was a point to that remark. My response can only be The Operational Art of War has stacking and is a computer game. The entire HPS catalogue seems to possess stacking and are computer games (that's like dozens of titles from Nappy to Civil War to WW2 and Modern era). SSG titles use stacking, there's several computer games too. Russo German War and Anglo German War uses stacking and are computer games. Several old classics used stacking, and were computer wargames. Such as Tanks Construction Set 2 Games such as Steel Panthers admittedly uses icons that are not counters, but the programming was able to deal with merged units in a single location. And those games all had counters with a good deal more counter data than a typical grand strategy title. A3R allowed two ground units, a 3rd for a rare para unit and limited amounts for air units and naval units required a port to be present. So that basically ruins the notion stacking is just a board gaming thing. It's plenty big to computer wargaming when the designer wants it to be. The nice thing about stacking in a computer game, is I don't need tweezers to examine them. They don't have burrs on the corners from the counter sheet. And prolonged durations of inactivity between playings doesn't involve dust build up on the board. The secret to stacking in a computer game, is just making good use of the interface. I admit, not all game designs feel like making the effort to make good use of the interface. The trouble is, most games spend all their energies on gimmicks and no effort on substance.

Unfortunately there is always a limit a breaking point, a spot where it's time to quit. Unsure what else can be said which I have yet to utter in my previous post. And I have said much and I have said it elsewhere as well. And the wise person doesn't limit themselves to just one source of input. And some input is warm and fuzzy and some input is frank blunt and without kid gloves. And opinions are free. And the biggest hurdle, is how to be authoritative and clear and concise, and not end up sounding rude offensive and arrogant. That, and attention spans of forum dwellers likely fizzle right about now. So how to convey a useful message, say something new or at least useful, get it read and not be dismissed out of hand as an opinionated know it all. My number one beef with wargame designers as of late, would likely be how most seem unable to use that which works in another's game, in their own. Especially maddening, is when wargame designers seem incapable of using great ideas that work from other designs. Why are we not playing all our wargames in WEGO? It's the best of the best in usable turn based cheat proof gimmic proof reasonable simulation. IGOUGO is ok, it's just not the best. Real time is ok if you keep it squad level. Above that it becomes increasingly worthless. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. So why do so many designers insist on taking a success and "fixing" it when it wasn't required. Hexes for instance didn't need to be replaced in SC1, yet you just had to screw with it. And you are not alone in ignoring what works Hubert. Road to Victory is sounding like it will be serving SC2 up a large dose of dust in a years time. But I find it interesting that no one at Matrix Games is not berating them for the worst interface in grand strategy wargaming. How they managed to justify the interface it has is beyond me. Tutorials. The Tutorial in the recent Nintendo Civilization is in my opinion unmatched. Every time you do something new, you get a helper that explains it and a choice to turn off the helper when you have heard it all before. In Road to Victory, apparently the concept of Tutorial is lost on the designer. The above two comments wouldn't exist if they had looked at SC1 and seen how to make an effortless interface I suppose. If not for the forum comments, alluding to features I have yet to experience, because learning how to run the game let alone playing it is so difficult, I would be greatly regretting buying it about now. For those obsessed with real time, and of the curiously idiotic notion that 6 years simulated in 6 hours has anything to do with real anything, I wonder, why isn't everyone at least copying Panther Games? In their design, changing your mind continuously is punished. The chain of command is simulated excellently. Orders are not instantaneously transmitted as fast as you can click your mouse. 3d. The only actual 3d in wargaming is on a table top wargaming table. Otherwise, it's 2d being graphically faked. And what exactly is the purpose of 3d iconic images in a 2d based game? What is the point of marketing a game in pretty 3d when the demographic couldn't care less? The younger set that play the graphically demanding first person shooters are not interested in our dull old school boring simulations of historical what if. You won't be winning them over with pretty icons. So why waste your time drawing them? What's the first mod that always seems to show up after a game is released? It's the damned Nato icon set. Doesn't it say enough? Is it not obvious enough? We like the Nato icons. Stop listening to the 10 or 15 people that will enter a forum and wail and whine about how the Nato icons are old school and boring. Or is 10 or 15 people worth that much in decision making? HPS seems to be doing plenty fine releasing game after game after game after game using old school maps and old school counters with dull old school interfaces which are at least functional and self evident how they work. So why exactly everyone else is trying to make their interface look all pointlessly graphically clever looking escapes me. Our games are universally judged to be dull and boring, so what. I think every MMO on the market is incredibly dull and repetitive too. But I am not the one being marketed to. So if I say I want something the old school way, and I am part of the majority of the target demographic, then to hell with the 10 or 15 guys that loudly don't like the content. Be ready to just tell them they are not representative. I'm sticking by my assessment of SC2. We were all shocked when you dumped hexes. The tiles not only look like crap, they are hard on the eyes and frankly the map is ugly. You could have just tweaked the SC1 map, you "fixed" something that wasn't broke. You went with cute counters that no one required and I am sure it took a lot of time to arrive at all those images no one needed. You added in a great editor and forgot that most wargamers just want to play the game. I couldn't care less if it has a great editor. I've never used a game editor for a single wargame in over 20 years. It doesn't make up for the tiles, ugly map and unnecessary cute icons. The battles feature was a good notion. But several important short comings with SC1 weren't even given the slightest acknowledgment. The battle of the Atlantic never happens, instant failing grade. The strategic bombing campaign never happens, instant failing grade. Germans invading America instant failing grade. I don't do scifi in my serious wargames. No unit stacking, major let down. No multiple location based attacks leading to WW1 syndrome, major let down. You're not alone though. Much as I like Commander Europe at War, it too doesn't have stacking and it too doesn't use multi location based attacks. If I can simulate this in another wargame, then it's not impossible to code. WEGO would likely make a lot of our wargames massive online hits. I think there is a reason Combat Mission attracts the following it has. WEGO separates the losers from the winner really quick. SC1 was so easy to cheat in, that only a complete clutz couldn't figure out how to do it. It utterly and irrevocably ended my interest in competitive play online. WEGO could make a game a complete runaway success. So why is it so many avoid it? It's not like it is hard to understand the how, it's actually been done before. The V4Victory titles for instance. Our designers really that uninterested in stealing other's great ideas? I want fun first, simple second, challenging third, and accurate last. I want all 4 but I want them in that order. I won't play it if it isn't fun. It won't be any fun if it isn't simple. Work is work. I need a human for it to be a challenge, and I want it to be impossible to cheat. And I want the fantasy left out. If you want non historical, fine, go with red vs blue. It doesn't have to be WW2. And one last dig, get the hell off the PC. Grand strategy is possible on the console market. Stop pretending it's too expensive and impossible. Panzer Tactics proved it is possible. Slitherine appears to think it is doable too. There's more to wargaming than the PC, and most of our titles would port just fine. Most of our games don't require demanding graphics. And if you weren't aware, the Nintendo DS demographic is kids and mature adults. Guess what, mature adults is the same demographic that buy your wargames. 70 bucks to buy a GOOD DS wargame, not a seconds thought. I couldn't care less how many teens go and utter "I ain't paying 70 bucks for a DS game" Who cares what the teens think about the price, they ain't going to be playing it.

There is always a number 1 in any list. Tiles isn't it. But regarding Panther Games, no argument there. Only game in real time mode where command is actually realistic, simulates the stupidity of changing your mind too often and gives an interface a wargamer won't have a problem with. I don't think real time is suited to the decision requirements of grand strategy though. Which is why when I hear people claiming the virtues of real time grand strategy titles, I tend to treat them the same way when listening to idiots. I just want hexes, because in my view, hexes outrank tiles on the list. Why settle for second best? If tiles actually WERE equal to hexes, there would be more games that gave a damn about them, more board games that employed them.

Just to be fair. There are no shortage of people that love the game "under the hood" that is Gary Grigsby's World at War. I bought the first release, and I bought the rebirth known as A World Divided. But while the game under the hood might be grand, the game on the monitor is abominable. The icons look like his grand daughter drew them. They were unacceptable in both releases. They were lousy choices plan and simple. What was good though, is they took the design gaffes of GGWAW and turfed them and gave us GGWAW AWD. They cut some slack for the people that paid out for the first, and gave them a great discount for the second. And I also don't mean a lousy 5 bucks off. As I have said over in the SC1 forum, I have no intention of playing SC2 no matter how patched and expanded it becomes. I just wish Hubert had given us an improved SC1, not this visual eye sore SC2 that some of you seem to think is an improvement. It isn't. But as I said, to be fair, it's not like SC2 is the only game well thought of, with visual aspects that suck. And elements that don't cut it that everyone seems willing to ignore. And I have the new Road to Victory from Matrix Games. And I have to admit, I'm getting bored waiting for the fan love to die down. Road to War has divisional scale, 190 turns of grand strategy goodness, but the game's idea of a tutorial is a crock. It's not a tutorial, tutorials actually teach. And the interface, my god, I have yet to see a less intuitive interface in all my years of gaming. It's virtually the exact opposite of the SC1 interface. So there you have it. Tiles blow chunks, and the SC2 map is so lousy looking as to be an eye strain. I want my hexes back. I'm not negotiating on this one. If SC3 has tiles, it's no sale.

What I had problems with (where SC1 is concerned) was the Ireland of no return effect, and subs that never should have been counters on the board. Sure some of the more exacting comments are likely valid, but they were never important to myself so much so I would have stopped playing. In fact I have not stopped playing, and SC1 is still on my computer. SC2 is unexpected to ever be considered seriously by me. Deal with it, I don't care that the editor is so much "better" I don't edit games I play games. The tiles sucked the last breath of life out my interest in this game. You can ramble on about 8 locations to attack from, I couldn't care less. The map is visually an eye sore. And why should I be made to rely on unpaid volunteer efforts of fans and their creations? In grand strategy the competion is SC1 (A-) grade SC2 - (F) failing grade. Commander Europe at War - (A) grade World War 2 Road to Victory - (B-) grade. Hubert, you controlled the field with SC1, dropped the ball with SC2, let CEAW still your thunder, and more recently there is Road to Victory which while divisional, more turns and all, is not stellar by any stretch of the imagination. All I wanted was Third Reich done better than the actual computer game of the actual title by that name. There is a list of games as long as my arm (literally that long if I print it out eh), that contain stacking of units in near grand strategy levels of wargame design. Most notable being The Operational Art of War design. That CEAW and the new Road To Victory also don't employ it is vexing to say the least. But both CEAW and RTV used hexes, and did it just fine. CEAW did a fine job of great graphics and kept the game simple. And frankly it runs circles around SC2 at all of SC2 supposed tricks. It's not perfect, no game is, but it earned the A grade. I won't play SC2 for free, so asking me to pay for those expansions (what happened to it being a game with a great editor btw?), is just not going anywhere. I would much rather you go with the original idea a lot of the SC1 veterans wanted, and that is SC1 with the few errors taken out and a slightly better editor for the editor demons amongst us. That you expected us to pay for over rated editor creations by marketing them as expansions, clearly demonstrates you could have just given us the improved SC1 we all thought we might get. That people are willing to buy the SC2 expansions, is indicative that you also could have just sold us a much improved SC1 and called it SC1mk2. SC2 is NOT an improved SC1. They have nothing in common. It is NOT an evolved SC1. And just because you made it, doesn't mean you can force me to agree that it is I was once one of your SC1 hard core regulars. When you dropped SC2 on us, I basically walked out. I haven't really been involved since. And while this might sound harsh, I don't care if SC2 dies. The sooner the better. Then you can get back to giving thought to making that SC1 Improved or Enhanced, or MK2 we likely would rather have. Well I know I would rather have it at least. Thanks for the time to hear my thoughts.

If it isn't broke, don't fix it. Hexes work, have always worked, and Civ would look better with hexes too.

In the end, that's generally what I assume is usually the decision. I can deal with being the 1 out of 10 instead of part of the 9 out of 10 Often a game (or anything for that matter) can and usually does fail, when a person attempts to score all 10 out of 10.

I require one thing from a game in order for me to buy it. It better run. Now, as for liking a game, if you want me to like it, it has to do more than just run SC2 is likely a lot less buggy that a great many other games out there. That's nice. But, in a market where everyone is clamouring for my money, you have to give ME what I want, in order to win me. Soooo it's not an option, for the designer, to just do it his way, unless they are merely interested in making the game for laughs. I suspect HC wanted a profit. I suspect he's made at least some profit, because his game appears to run at least. But, he hasn't made a major classic in SC2. Nope, SC1 was the classic. SC2 is just a less than perfect round 2. And like a lot of sequels, often the sequel is just not as cool as the original. So, while he likely will enjoy making and selling SC2, I'll likely stick to playing SC1 until I get something "I" call better.

90% of my need is stacking. With stacking you get Advanced Third Reich. A person can't ask for much more than that. Hexes are better than tiles. Well at least according to my eyes. I have never gotten a head ache looking at hex gridded wargame maps. Easy enough to just not use grid. Realism. If I can't place a ground unit to garrison Malta (best example normally available is Malta), and have an air unit to defend it. As well as have naval units based there, the design needs fixing. Being forced to pick garrison and no air defense, or air defense and no garrison is just plain clumsy designing. I don't expect a massive garrison, and I don't expect a massive air fleet. But to have to pick is unacceptable. If the game goes global, how will it depict invading an island? They only took those islands to provide air cover or air bases in a lot of cases. Are we going to be stuck unable to garrison AND base air on them? That will make having the Pacific included in the game a total waste and a reason to just not play it at all. Suspension of disbelief has it's limits. Ability to invade vs a coast that is defended. Well lets see, Torch, Husky, Overlord, several islands in the Pacific do we need any more examples of why a unit being on a coast hex should only mean casualties will be higher. The idea "hah ha I am in the hex so you can't invade it now" is the same as saying the game is a farce.

I want to comment on game engine. In SC3, I am not interested in beating SC3 out of SC2. I think SC3 should be new software if it's going to be done at all. I don't want a mangled SC3 with hidden gems that will plague the game for years. HC was ok with dumping SC1 and giving us a totally new looking game in the form of SC2. Not sure if the SC2 code is remotely the same as the SC1 code, and not interested in knowing I suppose. I just want SC3 to look like I thought SC2 was going to look before all the learning in SC1 was thrown away. As I see it, SC1 was abandoned for SC2. I won't feel any pangs of regret abandoning SC2 for a better SC3.

Sometimes you're right the first time. The shadows make the units appear to stand up. That effect is actually pleasing to the eye. Regarding the overhang, I see nothing wrong with it. The numbers being slightly off counter, nothing wrong with that either. Regarding distinguishing infantry unit types, you appear to have room for the unit size coding at any rate. X, XX, XXX, XXXX. We all recognize the designations after all.

First I think HC was more in tune with the crowd with SC1, SC2 seems to have been a different case. As for his own vision, well I assume he's always understood his own mind As for what actually occurred, it's a common problem with wargame design, depicting what really happened, with a game design that occasionally has trouble simulating it. Grand strategy seems to have the greatest trouble with this, as lower echelon game settings usually have more detail and thus more details to work with. The trade off is the greater the detail, the greater the complexity. Complexity is often very realistic, and very time consuming and harder to play in a short span of time. The trick is simulating those famous moments in time that changed the course of the war. Ultra and Enigma are among the hardest aspects to emulate for instance. Leaders making entirely brain dead decisions at key moments also are hard to replicate.